I don't complain about that, my Lord; I am happy to seek to try to answer the points the court wants to raise.
My seventh and final topic is the role of Parliament, and the submission that is made by the appellant is there have been debates in Parliament. There have been Select Committee reports, there will be more such debates, and the appellant says it is a matter for Parliament to decide the nature and the extent of its involvement. Of course we agree, subject to an important qualification.
We say it necessarily follows from our submissions, if they are correct, that only an act of Parliament could lawfully confer power on the appellant to notify under Article 50(2). Why is that? Well, because notification would nullify statutory rights and indeed a statutory scheme. The law of the land is not altered by a motion in Parliament; this is a basic constitutional principle. The court knows a motion may be approved in the House of Commons today. I want to be very clear on this. Our submission is that a motion in Parliament does not affect, cannot affect, the legal issues in this case. This issue arose in the Laker case. Can I take your Lordships back to the Laker case; it is core authorities, volume 2, and it is tab number 12.